Justification: A New Covenant Blessing

Our talk this morning is entitled, "Justification: A New Covenant Blessing."

Yesterday we saw that the prophecy in Jeremiah 31 about the New Covenant involved a promise of regeneration. Today I want to consider the question whether it also entailed a guarantee of justification.

After, as we saw yesterday, Paul considered himself to be a minister of the New Covenant. I quote again his words in 2 Corinthians 3:5-6:

Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the New Covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Of course, as we all know, the doctrine of justification by faith was a crucial part of the Pauline gospel. The question I am raising is this. Did Paul think of justification by faith as a benefit included in the promises of the New Covenant?

The solution to this question is not quite as obvious as the issue we discussed yesterday. It is plain that the New Covenant anticipated regeneration. Did it also anticipate justification?

Part one: Forgiveness under the New Covenant.

There is no question that forgiveness is one of the New Covenant benefits. For this we have the authority of the book of Hebrews. Let me quote the words of Hebrews 10:15 to 18:

But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us, for after He had said before, ‘This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,’ then He adds, ‘Their sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more.’ Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

The last words of this quotation are not from Jeremiah but are the words of the writer of Hebrews. I am speaking of his comment: “Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.”

The word remission here of course is the Greek noun aphesis, which is the standard New Testament noun for forgiveness. Clearly the author of Hebrews understands the New Covenant words “Their sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more” as guaranteeing the forgiveness of sins.

Part two: Forgiveness and justification compared.

For anyone who sees no distinction between justification and the forgiveness of sins, then the problem we are discussing is already solved. If they are interchangeable terms, then when one is promised so is the other.

However, there is a critical difficulty with this approach. The identification of forgiveness with justification is, in my judgment, an invalid identification. I do not believe that the New Testament offers any evidence that they should be equated as though they were interchangeable terms.

In fact, in Acts 13 they seem to be distinguished. In that chapter, in Paul’s speech in the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia, Paul speaks these words in verses 38-39:

Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins. And by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

I call your attention here to the word “and.” Paul clearly appears to distinguish the two benefits. To paraphrase his words he seems to be saying, I am preaching forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ and every believer in him is also justified.

There is no suggestion of equivalence here. To forestall a question, I am aware that the “and” is not found in the critical editions of the Greek New Testament. Of course it is found in the majority text. But the absence of the “and” in no way invalidates my argument. Instead it results in two separate sentences.

This is illustrated by the NIV translation of these verses as follows:

Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed. Through Him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

Even under this translation we have no real grounds for identifying these two benefits of faith in Christ as the same. As a matter of fact, the conclusion that they are distinct is strengthened by the fact that Paul and Peter are paralleled in the narrative of the book of Acts.

As far as I know this Lucan technique was first noticed as far back as the work of R. B. Rackham in the early 1900s. In the Lucan parallels observed by Rackham, Peter’s premier speech in Acts 2:14-39 has its counterpart in Paul’s premier speech in Acts 13:16 to 41.

Close study of the two speeches reveals both similarities and differences. Both speeches have in common an offer of the forgiveness of sins. But only the Pauline speech contains a reference to justification by faith.

If anyone here thinks this is accidental, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. Obviously Luke was well aware of Paul’s deep interest in this doctrine, whereas Peter never mentions it either in Acts or in either of his two epistles.

Thus in the book of Acts the only reference to it is right here and it is on the lips of Paul. This is both historically and psychologically accurate. Of course I am not saying that Peter did not know the doctrine. That would be absurd.

I am only saying that Luke’s assignment of this doctrine to Paul’s mouth but not Peter’s reinforces the inference we have already made. Luke knew that this doctrine was profoundly important for Paul. And Luke knew it was not identical with the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins.

What then is the difference between these doctrines? I think we can state that difference very simply. Forgiveness is an interpersonal matter. In ordinary life it deals with relationships between people. In religious matters it deals with man’s personal relationship to God.

By contrast, justification in Pauline thought is a judicial issue. According to my American Heritage dictionary there are four fundamental definitions for the word judicial plus a theological definition. Let me give you all five.

Number one: of, pertaining to, or proper to courts of law or the administration of justice. Two: decreed by or proceeding from a court of justice. Three: pertaining or appropriate to the office of a judge. Four: relative to, characterized by, or expressing judgment. Five: theology, proceeding from a divine judgment.

It seems to me that the Pauline concept of justification is judicial in at least most of these senses. For Paul it is basically a term related to the courtroom. And the act of justifying someone is the function of a judge, that is, of God. And it expresses a divine pronouncement or judgment about the believer in Jesus Christ.

That judgment is that the judge recognizes no charge at all against the believer. This conception appears very clearly in Romans 8:33 to 34:

Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns?

In justification therefore God pronounces the believer perfectly righteous. And as a consequence he is beyond any and every charge before God’s judgment seat.

Let me sum up my point in this section. Forgiveness removes the personal barrier of sin between God and myself. Justification frees me from all accountability in the final judgment.